TRAMWAY DEMANDS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1799, 11 July 1913, Page 9

TRAMWAY DEMANDS.

APPEAL BOARDS,

ENFORCING DECISIONS.

OVERCROWDING CARS,

Matters affecting tho interest of tramwaymen wero brought under tho notice of the Hon. W. Fraser (Minister for Public Works) yesterday morning by a deputation representing the New Zealand Tramway Employees' Federation. Mr. W. C. Noot. secretary of tho Wellington Tramway Employees' Union, introduced the delegates.

Mr. A. J. Mills, president of the federation, 6aid that the first request of the deputation was that tho Tramways Amendment Act, 1910, should.be further amended to provide that tramway appeal boards should have power'to enforce their decisions. At present thero was a flaw in tho Act which rendered tho boards powerless in this respect.'-

Tho Minister: You have a particular case in mind?

Mr. Mills said that li.o referred to a case, in Dunedin when the Appeal Board upheld an appeal unanimously, and gave instructions that the appellant should be reinstated. The man was given other employment, and after a week or so he was given a week's wages, and told he wag not wanted any more. Mr. W. Belcher, speaking as the employees' representative on the board- in question, confirmed the statement, and furnished details of the case in question. What was wanted, he stated, was the amendment of the Aot, as suggested by Mr. Widdowson, by inserting some clause providing power for the appeals boards to see that their decisions were carried out. Every appeal board in existence, added Mr. Belcher, was very careful to conservo the interests of tno employer, right throughout. Only onco in about a, dozen times was thero a decision ix> reinstate; in most eases the decision, went against tho appellant on probably very good and sufficient evidence. But if the appeal board decided that tho man was in the right, its decision should be upheld, or it would becom'o useless, futile, and ridiculous.

The Minister raised the question whether the employer should reinstate a man in a position where ho might be a. danger to the public. If an aocident took place through that man, who would bo responsible—the appeal board or the tramway authorities?, • .

Mr. Mills thought that was a matter for the Court of Inquiry to decide. If the captain of a ship ran his ship ashore, and the Court acquitted him of blame, he would get his'certificate back and another shiu. The Minister: But it might not bo the same ship or with the same company. The employer could not be relieved of responsibility for accident on the ground that it had been compelled by the Appeal Board to reinstate an employee it did not think iit for the position. Travelling on Platforms. The socond matter brought under the notico of the Minister by Mr. Mills was the overloading of the platforms of tramcars. in Dunedin principally. In Wellington, lie said, no passengers were allowed to ride on tho' platforms of the cars at all. In Diinedin there were seats on the oars fop four passengers at tho motorman's end. On the bock platform as many as fifteen passengers sometimes rodo, with tho conductor hanging on as best he could. It was an extremely dangerous practice for the public, as tlio oonductor would be unable to get to his rear brake if tho motorman's brako went wrong. ' It was also very dangerous for the men working tho oars. There was no question .if this practice were allowed in Wellington, with its hilly routes, tliero would be very serious accidents indeed. Tho carriage of luggngoon tile rear platforms of cars was also a danger. In Wellington they had power to refuso luggage beyond a certain limit, but lio had known cases where it was hardly possible to move on the platforms on account of tho luggage. .In Dunedin the mem did not seem to have any power to refuse luggage,at all.

THE MINISTER IN REPLY. CONFERENCE PROJECTED. The Minister. 6aid lie supposed they knew there wore no regulations ia regard to the Act. (Voices: Yea.) Certain draft regulations under a previous Minister had been submitted to experts and been largely amended. Ho had ordered these regulations to,bo printed and 6ent to each corporation or company owning tramways, and to each union of employees, 'with , a request for suggestions for improvement. He hoped he would get a satisfactory response. Then he intended 1 to call a conference of the various parties interested to see whether it was not possible to frame regulations to meet the circumstances. It would bo necessary to have.au amejidment to the Act. With regard to Appeal Boards, he had no doubt some amendment was required,'but ho reminded, the deputation that to relieve the employers of control was to relieve them of responsibility. Some provision would no doubt be made with regard to the enforcement of appeals. • , Mr. H. Carter, employees' representative on the Auckland Tramway Appeal Board, brought up some questions affecting the Auckland tnunwaymen. "me Minister promised his consideration to these matters and recommended the deputation to be well represented at the conference, where they would have an opportunity of presenting their views on all matters affecting railways.